On 3 Mar 2013, at 11:45, Luis Garcia Alanis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I was reading that clang had support for ObjectiveC 2.0 and gcc didn't. > However I also read that as of gcc 4.6 it also supports ObjectiveC 2.0. > > Is there a reason clang should be used? > > Etoile seems to require clang. This makes me thing clang still doing > something that gcc cant.
Clang runs faster in -O0 mode. Clang produces faster code in -O3/-Os mode (especially for objc). Clang produces better error messages. Clang will be updated in the future with all of apple's changes to objective-c. Clang is more friendlily licensed (not that I want to start a flamewar, and I realise this argument may not be strong on this particular list). Clang's codebase is easier to work on. Clang supports being used as a library, and hence can have other tools (e.g. google's refactored, or the static and (in early development) dynamic analysers) built upon it. Clang's C++ support is better than gcc's. Is there any reason gcc should be used over clang? Thanks Tom Davie _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
